Mr. R Vician v BAE Systems plc — 2024

Employment Judge Cawthray, sitting alone at London South on 2 May 2024, determined a preliminary issue as to whether the Claimant was an employee of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited for the purposes of his breach of contract claim. On the facts, the Claimant had been engaged through Baytree Labs Ltd, which had issued him a contract of employment, paid his salary and invoiced the Respondent for his services at an agreed day rate. The Claimant had signed the Baytree Labs contract and, at the time, understood Baytree Labs to be his employer.

Applying the guidance in James v Greenwich London Borough Council, the Tribunal considered whether it was necessary to imply a contract of employment between the Claimant and the Respondent to give business reality to the arrangements. The Judge concluded that the arrangements were clear and consistent with agency working, that a degree of integration and day-to-day contact with the Respondent's management was not inconsistent with agency status, and that Mr McGarry's courtesy call informing the Claimant his services were no longer required did not change the nature of the relationship.

The Tribunal held that the Claimant was employed by Baytree Labs Ltd and not by the Respondent. The breach of contract claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. It was not necessary to consider a deposit order.